Scotland and/or Israel warned about London bombings?

[Ghost of]

Bac

Where are all the people who died in the planes? How did their stories correspond(when they had a chance to say what was happening?) They described Middle Eastern males cutting and threatening.

7 out of 19 are NOT alive.

Just because someone is ex-military or a scientist means nothing. Do you know how many scientists have signed onto shaky global warming evidence or have their own axes to grind?

FOR ANY conspiracy theory, there are always a few legitimate types to lend credence. But you're missing something. WE SAW the planes hit the towers. We know the phone calls and what happened.

The Creationists have the same crap 'legitimates', but they're not more true or valid.

Remember that former NASA guy who talks about faces on Mars? Come on. There's always one or two.

As for the jet fuel causing the building to collapse, am I the only one that thinks if a jumbo airliner hits a building full of jet fuel that it WILL collapse? You haven't read the studies by real scientists that have demonstrated why?

You're only LISTENING to one side. All these 'holes' aren't holes at all. Do you really think that there were explosives in the WTC beforehand? WHy? THE PLANES HIT THE BUILDING! You think it was coordinated? What if one of the planes that hit WTC had a passenger group that FOUGHT BACK. WOuld they have not detonated the explosives then just packed up the tons of explosives they would have needed?

THATS THE SAME CRAP THEORY from OKC!! Can they at least be original?

Bac, if anything you should research China's threat, because at least we know they stole our MiRV plans and other technology and we had that fire near Los Alamos where two hard drives went missing.

Just wake up from this slumber, Bac. It's not too late. I've seen all kinds of junk that was made to seem quite credible but that turned out to be garbage(including a lot of UFO stuff.) Those sites NEVER present information in a truly objective fashion. It's always tailored to generate a credulous response even in the most rational and skeptical minds.

[Baculus]

Where are all the people who died in the planes? How did their stories correspond(when they had a chance to say what was happening?) They described Middle Eastern males cutting and threatening.

I have no idea, if any of this is true, what happened to the people on the planes. If would be easy to think of some scenario where either the passengers were transferred (the planes disappeared from radar for a while since they had turned off their transponders), or maybe they were still on the planes. I don't remember ever seen any bodies that were recovered from some of the wrecks. These theories do not necessarily preclude passengers from being on the plane.

Keep in mind, that every plane involved with 911 were disintegrated. I have looked at a number of plane wreck photos, and every one I saw, there was always wreckage. On this day, every plane seem to have vanished, with barely any parts left that could be investigated. For some reason, the government will not let private investigators analyze the few parts that have been found from the wreckage. (Experts want to look at the serial numbers that are on the various plane parts.)

You should read the tests conducted on the success rate of cell phones at high or cruising altitudes, which is 30,000 and up. It's very, very small, and folks have wondered how so many people were able to call when, usually at that altitude, it is very difficult for cell phones to send and receive signals. The Physics of 911 has a study that they conducted on this subject. So the calls of "cutting and threatening" are in question, since it is simply difficult to make calls at higher altitudes with cell phones. It is at the top of the page if you wanted to read it and perhaps analyze their results:

http://physics911.net/

Another strange thing is that, the list of victims - the plane's manifest - from the airplanes didn't have any of the names of the 911 attackers. You can get the official lists from some of these websites - I have seen the lists - and it is odd that you do not even see really any names of arabic orgin. Maybe the government didn't consider them passengers...I have no idea.

7 out of 19 are NOT alive.

There have been post 911 interviews conducted with some of the individuals after 9-11. Here is a link I grabbed from a Google of this subject:

http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/alive.html

Just because someone is ex-military or a scientist means nothing. Do you know how many scientists have signed onto shaky global warming evidence or have their own axes to grind?

FOR ANY conspiracy theory, there are always a few legitimate types to lend credence. But you're missing something. WE SAW the planes hit the towers. We know the phone calls and what happened.

Planes did hit the WTC - that is not in dispute. That happened. Also, I do not believe the "missles on the planes" theories because you can see that it is light reflection, as well as a strip that is simply on the bottom of the plane.

Actually, many of the phone calls were barely audible, and there are other details that bring them into question.

The thing is, experts often sign up for causes for money, among other reasons. The experts that are interested, investigating, or agreement with some of the 911 theories are credible. Some of them are former military who have little to gain by even suggesting that the official story does not seem straight. And some folks, such as the engineer from a company in the SW (his name escapes me) have even lost their jobs because of their agreement with some of the 911 investigations. Heck, there is even a Bush administration member who has made accusations even stronger then anything I've said in my thread.

This is written by Morgan Reynolds, chief economist for the Dept. of Labor during 2001-02. He talks about the collapse of the WTC:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html

The first page, Arctic Beacon, has a few articles about some of these individuals.

As for the jet fuel causing the building to collapse, am I the only one that thinks if a jumbo airliner hits a building full of jet fuel that it WILL collapse? You haven't read the studies by real scientists that have demonstrated why?

Real scientists? Many of the folks who believe it was impossible that the WTC was brought down by the planes include the designer of the WTC, the builder and steel provider, and a huge host of engineers and structural expert. Steel starts getting hot at 2000F, and starts to puddle at 3000F. Jet fuel burns at 1000F. There have been numerous experts that have said it was impossible for the tempatures caused, along with the structural damage, to have cause not only the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, but WTC 7 as well. Which, is a mystery by itself. A fire, before 911, has never, ever brought down a skyscraper. Not once in history. And the small fires in WTC 7was able to bring down that building? Good thing Silverstein, the ;eader of the WTC, bought a huge insurance deal on the WTC several months before 911. Here is an article with a picture of the fires in WTC 7:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html

Does that look like the building is going to collapse?

You're only LISTENING to one side. All these 'holes' aren't holes at all. Do you really think that there were explosives in the WTC beforehand? WHy? THE PLANES HIT THE BUILDING! You think it was coordinated? What if one of the planes that hit WTC had a passenger group that FOUGHT BACK. WOuld they have not detonated the explosives then just packed up the tons of explosives they would have needed?

Actually, there were multiple explosions reported by source after source. Workers in the basement where an explosion happened (recently, 14 witness have come forward discussing this issue) and destroyed not only equipment, but the parking area, the recordings of the firemen while they were in the WTC (this is a 45 minute recording, if you have never heard it, and it shows the incredible professionalism of the NYFD) that the firemen talk about more explosions happening, reporters, police, and bystanders at the scene who talked about the explosions, and, finally, seismographs that picked up the additional explosions. You can also see footage of news coverage from that time that talked about the additional explosions.

This is a thread I saw, with some links, that I grabbed:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread23709/pg4

The thing is, there are SO many witnesses at the scene that verified that additional explosions happened that it is MORE of a conspiracy theory to say that they didn't happened. I mean, I have watched a film that showed person after person, standing at the scene itself, saying, "Yes, additional explosions were happening." And not only that, but you can actually see explosives detonating from the WTC as it is collapsing. You can see flashes in the various floors and plumes exploding outward from the building. Detonation experts who have viewed this stated that it obviously looks like planted charges.

Keep in mind, if the attack was truly conducted by Al Queda, there is always a chance they planted additional charges in the buildings and the government is hiding this fact. But, at this junction, folks are really questioning why this detail is being ignored.

I actually have heard about a book that suggests that China was behind the attack. The thing is, I remember way back in 2001 or 2002, I discussed that some of the phone conversations, from the hijacked planes, at that time talked said that some of the hijackers were wearing red headbands. The color of islam is green (look at the photos of islamic groups, they usually wear gree, and sometimes white or black), and usually only socialist-communist groups wore red for their color, and I suggested that maybe China or Korea were involved in the attack. At that time, I was told I was a conspiracy nut, Bin Laden did it, and I dropped my argument. How times have changed!

A really, really good movie you can watch is called "Loose Change" that recently came out. It is available for fee via torrents, and it was very well made. It is worth it just to see some of the interviews with firemen and policemen, and does the subject justice.

[dreamingwolf]

wow I didnt have to point out how lost bac is, thanks bac for not making me go through the trouble. Enjoy the drugs.

[twa]

OK .. I'LL play for awhile

1 http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

2http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/p/pentagoncrash.htm

3http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml

4http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2004/110804factsstraight.htm

5http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

That should do for a start,and I hope you read them all since I was kind enough to read yours.

Of course in the end it all comes down to who you believe;)

Personaly I think I am in better company :laugh: although the first link had some entertaining tales.

[Baculus]

Dreamingwolf: Yap, yap, yap! Good puppy, now sit.

twa, I will look at your links, but do you know them well enough to discuss them?

[dreamingwolf]

keep it comming bac, this is great! Im enjoying you putting it out there.

[Baculus]

Ok, I am looking at the first link. And typying (and eating) as I eat this. (Yeah, I am having one heck of an exciting saturday night.)

First, none of the theories I've read are disputing that all five rings were damaged. In fact, that is part of the questions being asked: How did a nose of a jetliner, which isn't made of the most durable material, penentrate all the way through five sections of the Pentagon, especially in a newly construced section that was even more structurally sound then the surrounding Pentagon sections? (That particular section was being strengthened.)

So, they do not even have the "conspiracy" theory correct in this regards.

Moving on...

It's funny that they quoted Rumsfeld. During an initial press conference, Rumsfeld actually said that a *missile* had hit the Pentagon. Then he says, "The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building." Seeing how the hole in the Pentagon is on the ground floor, that is pretty amazing, don't you think?

It gets a bit more dubious. Now, in one account, it says that the plane actually hit the ground before hitting the Pentagon. To quote, "As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building..." In every photograph of the Pentagon, the grass and the area in front of the Pentagon is fee of any scorched earth from a the plane.

This page has a photograph at the very top that shows the Pentagon soon after the initial strike. Does the area in front of the Pentagon appear damaged from a plane? (Also, notice that tight little hole, much different then the later damage when the roof collapsed or was pulled down by firemen.)

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon911/pentagon911.html

By the way, I like the picture that they used, as an example, from the CNN article. That picture is just one frame from a few images from a Pentagon camera that was released. The same above page actually has a animated .gif that shows these frames, one after another. These pictures are very interesting, because there is one image that actually shows the silhouette of a plane. The problem is, it does not look like a 757 at all. It is much smaller, has a round canopy, at there is white exhaust of some type that is being produced. You can see for youself:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon911/pentani.gif

Look at that first frame. What do you see, and what type of plane is that?

Now, there have been folks on here that said they know someone that saw a plane. I cannot dispute that. There are other witness who saw a much smaller plane too. The witnesses who saw something else have been largely ignored.

Regarding the wreckage, there is the famous photo, on the page, of a small peice of wreck. The problem is, it does not look like any part of a 757, if you even include the color scheme. If you look at photos of plane wrecks, they are big, messy, and leave wreckage, usually in larger pieces. And the wreckage itself, including engine parts, have been disputed as well. Even one of the engine manufacturers, when presented with photographs, said that it was not the type that is used onboard a 757.

This article discusses this issue:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=37833

"American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757's turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece.

"If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine," Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: "It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy."

I do not see how the wreckage is any sort of validation.

It would be easy enough to dispute all of this - allow investigators to examine the pieces that were found at the Pentagon. Let them check the serial numbers which every plane has that will trace the parts to a specific plane. This has not been done. Why? Personally, I would like to put this to rest, but there are still unanswered questions, none of which Snopes answered in their article. Why the secrecy? How come other plane wrecks are investigated and the results are shown?

I am not going to dispute what someone may have said, as a witness, they saw hit the Pentagon. I am dealing with the physical evidence that should be part of any crash investigation.

I'll read your other sources as well.

[stevenaa]

You want to discuss secondary explosions. What do you think happens to all that fuel that spilled out. It evaporates and explodes. Very easily occurring for quite some time as it runs down hill and creates pockets of jet fuel vapor. A quart of evaporated gasoline detonated will sink a battle ship. Jet fuel is much more volatile. Let's not forget the likely cleaning areas with flammible containers of every type of cleaner. Degreasers and things that are volatile. For every funky theory you can dream up, there is a very rational explanation. You want to believe them because the government won't provide you info you want, then go right ahead. I don't expect my government to cater to the fringe element that hatches ridiculous theories and expects the government to respond. Then when the government doesn't respond, decide that is somehow proof of thier guilt. Yes, you are definately on the fringe, and that becomes more and more clear with each post you make in your defense.

[Baculus]

Hey! You had a link to the http://www.propagandamatrix.com/! LOL. The funny thing is, that page is full of "the government knew or conducted 9-11" type articles. Just look at the mainpage - I visit that page on a regular basis. Trying to use one of my own pages against me, eh? For shame!

The fear that some, in the 9-11 Truth movement, is that the "a 757 did not hit the Pentagon" theories are red herrings, and being used to discredit the movement. That could be the cause, since once a theory is seen as dubious, then any related theories are thrown out the door, even if they are valid.

[Baculus]

You want to discuss secondary explosions. What do you think happens to all that fuel that spilled out. It evaporates and explodes. Very easily occurring for quite some time as it runs down hill and creates pockets of jet fuel vapor. A quart of evaporated gasoline detonated will sink a battle ship. Jet fuel is much more volatile. Let's not forget the likely cleaning areas with flammible containers of every type of cleaner. Degreasers and things that are volatile. For every funky theory you can dream up, there is a very rational explanation. You want to believe them because the government won't provide you info you want, then go right ahead. I don't expect my government to cater to the fringe element that hatches ridiculous theories and expects the government to respond. Then when the government doesn't respond, decide that is somehow proof of thier guilt. Yes, you are definately on the fringe, and that becomes more and more clear with each post you make in your defense.

Any investigation would want to look into details about secondary explosions. What if these additional explosions were from planned charges set by terrorists? Wouldn't that be worth looking into and a possible avenue of investigation? You are too busy worrying about these stories being related by "the fringe," but you are also ignoring the fact that a law enforcement investigation would want to look into such details as the possibilities of planted bombs. (When I first heard about these additional explosions, my impression was that they were planted by terrorists.)

After all, if they were planted, perhaps an investigation into the comings and goings of the building could lead to a trail that would help indentify those responsible. Naw, that couldn't be, could it?

Witnesses that talk about these explosions:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html

And it is not a fringe element when the 125-year old Fire Engineering Magazine calls the WTC investigation "a half-baked farce." Wow, those looney firemen.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/Conspiracy/Fire_Engineers_Call_WTC_Probe/fire_engineers_call_wtc_probe.html

Now, it is possible that some other source caused additional explosions. That is not out of the realm of possibilities. But these explosions have been described as loud and obvious, and have also been described as a "bomb." But, I would agree, it's always possible that they were caused by something other then planted explosives. Of course, during the collapse, you can actually see plumes from what some feel are set charges, exploding from the WTC.

The explosion angle does not have to be, if you think about it, government related. If you inversed it, what if terrorists planted these charges?

[Ghost of]

Bac

Just to clarify something, it's not that we don't agree with your distrust of government or other actors in this world or that things the like of which you speak have NOT been done. They HAVE.

But they still make sense in their own way. These arguments don't have any more validity when we're talking OKC and TWA 800. In fact, it's argued that TWA 800 WAS(and the explanation makes NO SENSE) an 'incident' of some kind that got swept under the rug to avoid pressure to do something more than what was done for decades.

But, again, there has to be some internal coherence. Just getting some numbers in the polls or briefly altering the dynamic of public opinion is not enough AND more IMPORTANTLY--not consistent with the facts and logic in these cases.

Now, the Lusitania??? There is your confluence of external enemy AND 'conspiracy' in order to trigger US involvement in WW I. BUt again the motives and the actions were far more reasonable from that perspective than what is being proposed.

[Baculus]

I went to the infamous Popular Mechanics article, which is full of errors. I do agree with a couple of their assertions, such as the "pod" theory, that is bogus. If you look at a 767 photograph, you can see the enlarged mid-section that is obviously the "pod" that is theorized. Not only that, but some of the 757 paint configuration's has a white line down the middle, which has been seen as a "missle." That theory is bogus and dismissed with investigation. (Which I took the time out to look into myself.)

Also, the image of the second plane hitting the WTC is obviously a jet airliner. There are images, from different angles of this plane, and its painting matches the exact configuration of some UA planes. The "windowless" plane theory does not hold up to scrutiny and is also bogus. It was, indeed, a UA plane that struck the WTC.

The rest of the article, though, has some mistakes. This page discusses the mistakes in the article:

http://911review.com/pm/markup/

[Baculus]

Ghost,

Yeah, the Lusitania, similiar to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, is an example of a pretext being created. Not many people know about this particular incident, and many would brush if off as being another conspiracy theory.

I have an investigative mind, and, even doing my own research and not just relying upon others, I have discovered that some things do not add up. I would love a government explanation that could explain things a bit better, but the problem is, none has ever been forth coming, which to me has been odd.

And, as some has suggested, the attacks weren't intended just to change poll numbers. One military man, when discussing 9-11, said that he felt that it was an attempt at a coup d'etat. Others have speculated on this being used as a pretext to motivate changes that some felt were needed, i.e., the Project for a New American Century. The speculation can be endless, and I have heard some crazy ones, trust me.

We can speculate on their motivations, and really, there is a point when I'd actually like to really look at the analysis of the events and not even theorize on why they would do this.